Don't count goals scored for the opposition - Yes or No?

[Travis Hoffman]

Proposal - Modify the rules such that any goals scored for the opposition are not counted. All other seeding/ranking rules remain as written.

What this would change -

1. Any "boosting" collusive actions would be eliminated, as the vehicle for such collusion would be removed.

2. Spectators - all the ones Dean is urging us to bring to the competitions to get them excited about FIRST - would be far less confused as to what the heck is going on down on the field.

3. Those alliances who cannot score due to functional difficulties will not suffer the additional public embarrassment of having the opposition score for them.

Many have witnessed all 3 of the above in action at the Week 1 regionals. Discussions and interactions revolving around the above have generated many emotions - anger, disappointment, confusion, embarrassment - that do not contribute to the otherwise "inspirational" atmosphere present at a FIRST event.

What this change would preserve -

1. The apparent ability of this system to let the cream rise to the top of the rankings.

2. The promotion of offensive activity during qualifying.

3. The disincentive to bogart all the game pieces and slaughter your opponents if you are on an excessively-capable alliance.

Your thoughts? Please don't debate the logistics of actually implementing this rule change into the scoring software. I am only interested in opinions on how this would affect strategy and gameplay.

[Chris is me]

That removes the entire Coopertition Award from play as well, since the award is now based on how good your opponents are, as you have no legal way to help them score. Just to make people aware...

[Travis Hoffman]

That removes the entire Coopertition Award from play as well, since the award is now based on how good your opponents are, as you have no legal way to help them score. Just to make people aware...

You are not "helping your opponents score" by using your robot to score IN LIEU OF THEIR ABILITY TO DO SO. You are merely padding your ranking stats.

Your opponents would be better served if you helped them improve their design BEHIND THE PIT CURTAIN. That is where the true cooperation takes place.

Cooperate BEHIND the curtain; compete IN FRONT OF it. Merge the two to get your "coopertition". That formula has worked for years.

[Rich Kressly]

I voted for the change not that I think there will be one, but it is something I'd support. I'd be in favor of this, or adding the Win-Loss back in. I fully respect the work of the GDC and understand the philosophy behind writing the current rules in the manner presented to us, but there seem (and I emphasize "seem" since I can't speak for he intent of the GDC's work) to be some unintended, if not undesirable consequences. Anyone who knows me knows I'm pretty much the only person on the planet who LOVED the 2001 game which was a 4v0 game, but this is very different to me

You can still "help" the apposing alliance to score in other ways without physically doing so - not defending, putting more balls in opponents scoring zone, etc.

The reasoning behind my position is exceedingly similar to the one already conveyed by Paul Copioli over here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=932696&postcount=43

(Yes, I pretty much completely agree with Paul on this issue - go figure ;) )

[Travis Hoffman]

You can still "help" the apposing alliance to score in other ways without physically doing so - not defending, putting more balls in opponents scoring zone, etc.



I like the compromise inferred here - leave/place more balls into the opponents' zone, for THEM to do their own scoring.

There are still plenty of ways to earn the "Coopertition Award" - all of them more genuine than dumping balls into the opponent's goals.

[Jimmy Cao]

What defines "scored for the opposition"? Redbot kicked a ball, which touched bluebot, and went into the red goal. Who scored? Red who kicked, or blue who touched it last?

How do you tell who "scored"? The scoring system is automated. It eliminates the need for scorers. But wait, now we need people to not only count the goals, but also tell the system which ones are "legitimate"?

How do you enforce DOGMA penalties now? Must the balls still be put into play in the same timely manner? In that case, scoring for your opponents becomes a means of giving them penalties exclusively? But wait, you cannot cause a penalty. If they don't need to be returned, how do you tell the HP they can take their time with that ball.

In 2006, you could score for your opponents all you like. Teams took advantage of that to boost their own score. Wise move.

Likewise in 2009. It happened less often than 2006 in my opinion, but it is still a valid strategy.

Its no different in 2010. In fact, its MORE important in 2010. It helps sort out the "great" from the "best". Great robot can score 10/match. The best robots can score 10/match, and win every match by 1 point (in theory). Scoring for your opponents isn't the problem. It results from the way the ranking system is set up. Removing scoring for your opponents is a bad bandaid over the issue.

In 2006/2009, scoring for your opponents benefited the losing alliance. They get more RP. This year, if you lose, you benefit NOTHING from your points. I disagree with the system, but that's the way the system works. I don't like it, but, like the rest of us, I need to live with it.

So if you really want to fix the problem, I find it more logical to go after its root, and not just patch its branches.

[Travis Hoffman]

What defines "scored for the opposition"? Redbot kicked a ball, which touched bluebot, and went into the red goal. Who scored? Red who kicked, or blue who touched it last?


I would think that just the presence of the rule would be enough to dispel most teams from following the practice. How much intentional tipping did you see at events this past weekend?

Keep it simple - kick originated from red and entered blue's goal - IF DETECTED by the person assigned to catch it, it doesn't count, regardless of how it got there.

Most intentional scoring attempts from the opposition should be direct, obvious, and easily detectable by the volunteer(s) responsible for tracking them. Discount those. Accidental "deflection" scores and such will not be as obvious and are less likely to be caught. No big deal.

Much like refs sometimes fail to catch penalties, I'm sure some opposing scores would be missed. But the obvious ones should always be caught, and that's the main goal.


How do you tell who "scored"? The scoring system is automated. It eliminates the need for scorers. But wait, now we need people to not only count the goals, but also tell the system which ones are "legitimate"?


Deduct at the end of the game. Have existing refs or additional volunteers keep track. It's not like it's going to be a rampant practice if the rule is placed in effect.



How do you enforce DOGMA penalties now? Must the balls still be put into play in the same timely manner? In that case, scoring for your opponents becomes a means of giving them penalties exclusively? But wait, you cannot cause a penalty. If they don't need to be returned, how do you tell the HP they can take their time with that ball.


No changes to any other rules. HP's return all balls as usual.

One would think any attempts to overwhelm an opponents' HP's would be rather obvious, wreckless, and pointless. This is a non-issue.



So if you really want to fix the problem, I find it more logical to go after its root, and not just patch its branches.

I'm sure many will "go after" the root cause in the offseason. This is an attempt to discuss meaningful ways to address rising concerns THIS season.

[Jimmy Cao]

I would think that just the presence of the rule would be enough to dispel most teams from following the practice. How much intentional tipping did you see at events this past weekend?

Keep it simple - kick originated from red and entered blue's goal - IF DETECTED by the person assigned to catch it, it doesn't count, regardless of how it got there.


The problem with that is that people don't like ambiguous rules. Leave it ambiguous, and you'll get complaints that its not well stated. If you want to put a rule like this, I would think you need to define it clearly.



Most intentional scoring attempts from the opposition should be direct, obvious, and easily detectable by the volunteer(s) responsible for tracking them. Discount those. Accidental "deflection" scores and such will not be as obvious and are less likely to be caught. No big deal.

Much like refs sometimes fail to catch penalties, I'm sure some opposing scores would be missed. But the obvious ones should always be caught, and that's the main goal.



The intent behind the automated scoring system is that it is exactly that. Automated. FIRST is trying to remove human scoring for this, because that is inherently flawed. Granted, the automated scoring isn't flawless (at least it's better than 08 lap counters), but introducing volunteers to count the scores adds additional complexity.

Another, somewhat unrelated point. Last week, I saw one instance where the defending robot pushed a ball into the goal it was defending (or was pushed and therefore pushed a ball in). How would these be called? Leaving ambiguity in the rules leaves different events to have different interpretations. That causes problems. Adding additional wording results in more rules. Neither is very pretty.


I'm sure many will "go after" the root cause in the offseason. This is an attempt to discuss meaningful ways to address rising concerns THIS season.

I see it this way. If your robot has a roller that sometimes pulls the balls under the robot, incurring G46 penalties, how would you fix it? Would you try to adjust the placement of weight on your robot to fix it, or fix the roller itself? This scoring for your opponents concept is nothing new. Its a new reincarnation of old concepts. This new reincarnation is more powerful, and probably more widespread, but even if it is a bad concept (which I don't think it is), FIRST is no more likely to ban scoring on yourself than they are to change the ranking system.

[Travis Hoffman]

The problem with that is that people don't like ambiguous rules. Leave it ambiguous, and you'll get complaints that its not well stated. If you want to put a rule like this, I would think you need to define it clearly.


I didn't want to go here, but...would the following provide clear enough a message?

<G3.14159> TEAMS are not permitted to intentionally score in the opposing ALLIANCE's goals. Violation: PENALTY and YELLOW CARD.




The intent behind the automated scoring system is that it is exactly that. Automated. FIRST is trying to remove human scoring for this, because that is inherently flawed. Granted, the automated scoring isn't flawless (at least it's better than 08 lap counters), but introducing volunteers to count the scores adds additional complexity.



It's a penalizable offense now. Scoring will be conducted in an automated fashion as usual. The referee will penalize one point per infraction, with a yellow card. Do you think teams will bother attempting the practice with such a stiff penalty in place? Most teams don't want to do it anyway. They do it merely as an incentivized reaction to a loophole/quirk in the ranking/seeding rules. Close the loophole, and the incentive is removed.





I see it this way. If your robot has a roller that sometimes pulls the balls under the robot, incurring G46 penalties, how would you fix it? Would you try to adjust the placement of weight on your robot to fix it, or fix the roller itself? This scoring for your opponents concept is nothing new. Its a new reincarnation of old concepts. This new reincarnation is more powerful, and probably more widespread, but even if it is a bad concept (which I don't think it is), FIRST is no more likely to ban scoring on yourself than they are to change the ranking system.

Then shame on them for furthering all the frustrations and contradictory dilemmas propagating forth at events and in these myriad of CD threads.

If those responsible for permitting these behaviors will not act, it is up to the community to raise awareness and police themselves. It's already turned into a political process for certain teams lobbying for these collusive and opponent score padding strategies. If the majority is against the practice, then TURN THE POLITICAL PRESSURE AROUND. Distribute flyers within the pits on Thursday that both inform teams about the new ranking/seeding system (apparently a MUCH NEEDED practice) and state the larger, ideal-impacting arguments against scoring for the opposition, strategic advantage be darned.

Ask teams to unite against such practices, and don't let savvier teams manipulate less aware teams into engaging in these strategies. Kill off the "buzz" for scoring for an opponent at an event before it even gets off the ground.

Remember, just because something is permissible doesn't mean it should always be done. You do NOT have to "game the system", as someone put it. A few still will, but they are probably the teams who would seed high anyway even if they didn't resort to scoring for the opponents - they just elect to leverage every advantage they can because the rules permitted them to do so.

[Chris is me]

The problem with that is that people don't like ambiguous rules. Leave it ambiguous, and you'll get complaints that its not well stated. If you want to put a rule like this, I would think you need to define it clearly.

I would take an ambiguous rule over the ranking system we have now any day of the week.

[Swampdude]

Travis, I take it you are against the collusion strategy. If the rule stands, where do you draw the line? As soon as a team begins to lose, i.e. teammate breaks, the other team has 3 balls in during autonomous and your team has 1 kicker etc. Are you asking those teams to believe in miracles and keep scoring hoping they will come out on top, but knowing all they're doing is multiplying the winning teams score? For the sake of honoring a win/loss gaming philosophy? I would feel silly telling my driver to keep on pumping up the other teams score for them and I won't, it's ridiculous! If you're going to get everyone riled up at the regional to take a stand against collusion, you really need to make it clear what are the "NEW" rules. I would rather leave that to FIRST.

However, I like your idea of no opponent scoring! But I think FIRST needs to act fast on this or at least make a public acknowledgment of this situation.

[Cory]

This thread is pointless because hundreds of teams have already competed and FIRST will never make major changes to scoring rules after the season is underway.

[Jay Trzaskos]

In 2007 FIRST implemented a broken randomizer for Qualification matches. Teams in the first few weeks of competition ended up playing the same teams 5+ times, sometimes being beat each time. They recognized the problem and attempted to fix it around week 3 or 4. Was it a good fix? Not really, but it was better than the original algorithm.

FIRST needs to learn from past mistakes, and just get rid of the broken ranking system now. Sincerely apologize to the teams that only competed in week 1 for the horrible ranking system and go back to Win-Loss ranking. If I were still competing I would much rather they fix the problem now, recreate the intent of the “Coopertition Award”, and have gotten the bad end of the deal in week 1. Especially when compared to having to listen to people complain about how "un-GP" a legitimate strategy is that only exists because of a broken system.

FIRST made a mistake, teams exploited it to the advantage of ALL teams involved. If they are going to keep the ranking system then don't take away the LEGITIMATE strategy of 6v0. But if FIRST wanted to take the game out of the game, they did an amazing job of it.

[Travis Hoffman]

Travis, I take it you are against the collusion strategy. If the rule stands, where do you draw the line? As soon as a team begins to lose, i.e. teammate breaks, the other team has 3 balls in during autonomous and your team has 1 kicker etc. Are you asking those teams to believe in miracles and keep scoring hoping they will come out on top, but knowing all they're doing is multiplying the winning teams score? For the sake of honoring a win/loss gaming philosophy? I would feel silly telling my driver to keep on pumping up the other teams score for them and I won't, it's ridiculous!


In such an outmanned situation, I'd feel sillier and believe I'd be harpooning the spirit of the term competition if I were to pump balls into the other team's goal.

If I were in an outgunned situation, I'd switch to defense. I agree - it's silly to elevate the other alliance's rank (as well as your alliance's seeding score with this year's loophole/oversight/intentional decision/whatever the heck it is) just for the sake of nothing better to do. Spectators/sponsors/etc. won't understand what they are seeing, and you aren't furthering any FIRST ideals by providing those "fake points". The opposition didn't earn those scores. You didn't earn those scores shooting into an undefended goal. At least if I played defense, I'd still know that any scores they managed to achieve were earned against LEGITIMATE OPPOSITION, not via some misguided vision of forced "cooperation".




If you're going to get everyone riled up at the regional to take a stand against collusion, you really need to make it clear what are the "NEW" rules. I would rather leave that to FIRST.


As would I. Absent any action from FIRST, however...teams may choose to employ other means of getting the message across....;)

By the way, did other regionals neglect to play the game animation? I don't recall seeing or hearing it. I missed DC regional Saturday ceremonies, and I don't believe it was played at Friday opening ceremonies at all. Maybe they showed it throughout the day - I was in the pits almost exclusively.


However, I like your idea of no opponent scoring! But I think FIRST needs to act fast on this or at least make a public acknowledgment of this situation.

Sure would be nice.

[The Lucas]

It is easier to just to change Section 9.3.4 and give the losing alliance their penalized score instead of the winners unpenalized score. That would eliminate the 6v0 scenarios there would be less reasons to score in opponents goals.

To implement this change, all you would have to modify is a calculation in the scoring system. To not count balls scored in opponents goals, refs would have to enforce an ambiguous rule (often doesnt turn out well, and puts undue stress on the refs) and mess with the best real time scoring system we have ever had. The automated RTS seems to be working better than ever from what I saw in webcasts (certainly better than the ball counters in '06 or the lap counters in '08).

[GaryVoshol]

I voted no because it should not be changed now that the competition season has begun. Also, not allowing goals to be scored on yourself is not the best way to fix it.

[Greg Needel]

I am split having not played the game yet. I can tell you that there is an element of this ranking system that I like and it is the removal of pressure on each individual match. In pas years at large events such as the championship if you lose 1 or 2 matches you have dropped way down in the rankings. People always seem to talk about "lucky pairings" but I would argue there are just as many "unlucky pairings" and most teams are going to lose a few matches.

I DO NOT endorse starting the regional with no other strategy than scoring for your opponents, but I do feel that the 6v0 is within the spirit of this game and a necessary evil.

If I could change the ranking system I would change it to this.

Winner - Same as now (winner score + 2x the losers score)

Loser - Gets the winners points PLUS their own points

In many matches the ranking points would be as close as they are now. If a team decides to go 6v0 they still get the same score, but it gives incentive for a team to try and score for themselves and for the opponents to help their competitors and score for them. Basically what it breaks down to is any ball scored by the loser in their own goal or opponent's goal goes right to their ranking score. So why would you score for your opponent 100% when winning gives you a notable advantage and it doesn't hurt you if you try to win and fail. Thoughts?

A few examples (disregard penalties)

Blue loses 5-3 Blue gets 8 points Red gets 11

Blue loses 7-1 Blue Gets 8 points Red gets 9

Blue loses 6-5 Blue gets 11 Red gets 16

Blue Loses 8-0 Blue gets 8 Red Gets 8

[stevek]

... Anyone who knows me knows I'm pretty much the only person on the planet who LOVED the 2001 game which was a 4v0 game, but this is very different to me...


Rich, I thought I was the only one who loved this year. This was my first year involved and it has always been my favorate. Though I thing it was 2000 Not 2001, but thats not important!

The first year I was "Cooperation" points was the following year with Zone Zeal. In this year the loosers got their score and you got 2x their score. In zone zeal, we had dual arms that could score in our endzone and in theirs. If we were winning otherwise, this would nullify the points in regard to win or lose, but as the winner we'd get the 2x score of the opponent and thus have a higher score. This has been the basic premise of how "cooreration" points are figured ever since. I think last year and maybe the year before they started messing with it again. But this year (2010) is totally convoluted.

Why should we be penalized because our opponent cant score. The initial premise of the rule was to not Hog all the balls. That was good when you actually could hog all the balls. But now they only allow you to control one at a time and there are 12 balls and 6 robots... so you do the math.

I think the Win-Lose method is best and use the cooperation as the differentiator for tied teams. Otherwise its too conveluted.

I believe it doesnt matter who scores where so who cares about the way its counted... but it the rankings are done in a more logical manner then that would sort out the desire to score or not.

I have also stated in another post that they should have thought more about the scoreing in general. For instance, if we can score 2 on average in autonomous, why is that only two points. They used to give extra points to give people the incentive to actually spend time working on programming and get the most points possible in autonomous. Also Hanging could be a few extra as well... I think you would see more autonomous and more hangers had they done that. You want innovation, give people a reason to spend the time.

In short I think the ranking system is convoluted and i would love to see that change. I dont think you need to ban scoring on other peoples goals, just determine the results better and rank better and that would sort out what you do on the field.

Whats more confusing than "I get my Penalized Score, You Get my Unpenalized Score" But wait you lost and have more points than me... "but wait thats not all... the winner also gets the losers score for cooperation" Thats great what if they get Zero. I saw a lot of Zeros on the board. So now the losing alliance is higher than me in rankings... is this actually corect or am I missing something?

[Gary Dillard]

Travis:

The scoring rules this year allow a team who has not even fielded a robot to captain the alliance who wins the competition. Quite simply, if noone on your alliance shows up with a robot, it is very likely that you will receive more points for the match than the other alliance, since you will get their total points scored while they will get those same points MINUS their penalty points, plus twice your score which is likely zero (since you can't score any points yourself without a robot on the field). If you continue like this, you could possibly make it into the top 8 teams, pick an alliance, and then declare that your robot is not able to proceed so someone needs to substitute for you while you still get to be the captain. That way you can have 3 teams on the field when it's only a win-lose problem.

The team next to our pit finally passed inspection at about noon on Saturday, made it to their last match but sat dead because they couldn't establish com's, and finished 8th seed (they were 5-4-1). They moved up to 6th during alliance selection, picked us (of course), then proceeded to sit dead on the field for eliminations (they actually established com's prior to each match starting but lost them immediately).

Your proposed rule change makes this even more of a certainty. Fix the root problem - make winning count something.

[Swampdude]

I am split having not played the game yet. I can tell you that there is an element of this ranking system that I like and it is the removal of pressure on each individual match. In pas years at large events such as the championship if you lose 1 or 2 matches you have dropped way down in the rankings. People always seem to talk about "lucky pairings" but I would argue there are just as many "unlucky pairings" and most teams are going to lose a few matches.

I DO NOT endorse starting the regional with no other strategy than scoring for your opponents, but I do feel that the 6v0 is within the spirit of this game and a necessary evil.

If I could change the ranking system I would change it to this.

Winner - Same as now (winner score + 2x the losers score)

Loser - Gets the winners points PLUS their own points

In many matches the ranking points would be as close as they are now. If a team decides to go 6v0 they still get the same score, but it gives incentive for a team to try and score for themselves and for the opponents to help their competitors and score for them. Basically what it breaks down to is any ball scored by the loser in their own goal or opponent's goal goes right to their ranking score. So why would you score for your opponent 100% when winning gives you a notable advantage and it doesn't hurt you if you try to win and fail. Thoughts?

A few examples (disregard penalties)

Blue loses 5-3 Blue gets 8 points Red gets 11

Blue loses 7-1 Blue Gets 8 points Red gets 9

Blue loses 6-5 Blue gets 11 Red gets 16

Blue Loses 8-0 Blue gets 8 Red Gets 8

This is much better than the current system (and better than not scoring opponent balls), at least it gives "some" incentive to the loser and hence more incentive for the winner not to 6v0. However the loser still has more incentive to score in the opponents goal than their own so as to not help out the opponents ranking.

[Travis Hoffman]

Travis:

The scoring rules this year allow a team who has not even fielded a robot to captain the alliance who wins the competition. Quite simply, if noone on your alliance shows up with a robot, it is very likely that you will receive more points for the match than the other alliance, since you will get their total points scored while they will get those same points MINUS their penalty points, plus twice your score which is likely zero (since you can't score any points yourself without a robot on the field). If you continue like this, you could possibly make it into the top 8 teams, pick an alliance, and then declare that your robot is not able to proceed so someone needs to substitute for you while you still get to be the captain. That way you can have 3 teams on the field when it's only a win-lose problem.

The team next to our pit finally passed inspection at about noon on Saturday, made it to their last match but sat dead because they couldn't establish com's, and finished 8th seed (they were 5-4-1). They moved up to 6th during alliance selection, picked us (of course), then proceeded to sit dead on the field for eliminations (they actually established com's prior to each match starting but lost them immediately).

Your proposed rule change makes this even more of a certainty. Fix the root problem - make winning count something.

My proposal was based on the assumption that a certain individual would not permit the GDC to toss his entire patented scoring structure out the window this season. A compromise would be more likely if enough people discussed it publicly and it became large enough of an issue - I think it HAS.

You gotta start somewhere - keep up the discussion and suggestions.

Like Greg, I also like the aspect of retaining the basic structure of this ranking/seeding method. You still have the ability to vault yourself up the rankings if you have a really good match, and that having one match with less than ideal partners (or has been our history, multiple matches - so far, we've been the "less than ideal" partner this season! :p) won't harpoon your chances of making the playoffs.

I still advocate not scoring for the opposition at any time, because it does no one any favors in the long term. Leaving balls in their zone or tossing balls into their zone to help them score the balls themselves is a much more preferable course of action, which is still in the spirit of "coopertition". But I suppose there are too many people who believe it's ok to provide virtual "scoring welfare" to the opposition because it betters their own positions and makes them all warm and squishy inside....:rolleyes:

I also still advocate defense in qualifying, but only against those great scoring teams where you would be demonstrating something useful for the elimination rounds - a tight, close fought match where you need to suppress the opposition to pull out the win for the most likely immense coopertition bonus. Again, let the less-capable teams show off and score whenever they can. But let THEM score.

Now that I've read some other posts, I really don't like the loser getting any of the winner's points - this is along the same lines as my previous arguments - they've not EARNED those points - instead those points are like "scoring welfare" for the inept.

New Proposal

Winner = Winner Penalized + 2 * Loser Penalized
Loser = Loser Penalized

Get rid of any hint of receiving any UNPENALIZED points in this game. Penalties are there for a reason and should be factored into all aspects of the seeding and coopertition bonus scores.

If the loser is sooooo inept that they are penalty machines that erase all coopertition bonus incentive for the winner, then I suppose the winner should do a better job behind the curtain of making sure their opponents can score and avoid penalties. Nyah. :p

This also eliminates all loser scoring for the opposition scenarios. The loser only gets what the loser earns. The winner gets what they earn plus a bonus for whatever they (hopefully) let the loser earn on their own, without (hopefully) any artificially "fake" score boosting.

[Racer26]

Travis:

The scoring rules this year allow a team who has not even fielded a robot to captain the alliance who wins the competition. Quite simply, if noone on your alliance shows up with a robot, it is very likely that you will receive more points for the match than the other alliance, since you will get their total points scored while they will get those same points MINUS their penalty points, plus twice your score which is likely zero (since you can't score any points yourself without a robot on the field). If you continue like this, you could possibly make it into the top 8 teams, pick an alliance, and then declare that your robot is not able to proceed so someone needs to substitute for you while you still get to be the captain. That way you can have 3 teams on the field when it's only a win-lose problem.

The team next to our pit finally passed inspection at about noon on Saturday, made it to their last match but sat dead because they couldn't establish com's, and finished 8th seed (they were 5-4-1). They moved up to 6th during alliance selection, picked us (of course), then proceeded to sit dead on the field for eliminations (they actually established com's prior to each match starting but lost them immediately).

Your proposed rule change makes this even more of a certainty. Fix the root problem - make winning count something.

This situation is really distressing. A scoring system simply SHOULD NOT allow a team who hasn't even fielded a robot to finish as 8th seed.

While I realize this was TECHNICALLY possible in the 2004-2009 years, you would have had to have excellent alliance partners. Look at the detriment a dead trailer was in 2009. This effectively prevented this very thing from being a problem.

[Chuck Glick]

New Proposal

Winner = Winner Penalized + 2 * Loser Penalized
Loser = Loser's Penalized

Get rid of any hint of receiving any UNPENALIZED points in this game. Penalties are there for a reason and should be factored into all aspects of the seeding and coopertition bonus scores.

...

This also eliminates all loser scoring for the opposition scenarios. The loser only gets what the loser earns. The winner gets what they earn plus a bonus for whatever they (hopefully) let the loser earn on their own, without (hopefully) any artificially "fake" score boosting.

This makes 10X more sense than the current system. This gives everyone an incentive to try to win AND not get penalties. Isn't that the goal?

I believe that this current system isn't teaching students about the real world, where there are winners and losers. We need to stop worrying about hurting people's feelings.

Winning feels great, and losing sucks, but you know what, it's a part of life. Losing builds character, it allows you to grow to get past the hard times. We don't need a system that attempts to make everyone happy because in reality there is no difference in winning and losing now.

Hopefully the GDC sees that the current system is not ideal and attempts to remedy it. However, if this was the intent the whole time, then bravo, you are desensitizing the youth of America.

[Rich Kressly]

Rich, I thought I was the only one who loved this year. This was my first year involved and it has always been my favorate. Though I thing it was 2000 Not 2001, but thats not important!


Actually, the 4v0 game was indeed 2001 and the game was called Diabolical Dynamics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabolical_Dynamics

While the 2000 game was called "Co-opertition FIRST" it was not the 4v0 game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Opertition_FIRST

But, you're right that's not important here.

What is important is the discussion and I do see a lot of viable and interesting potential tweaks here. While was may not see any changes this year, I'm certainly very happy for the discussion.

[Gary Dillard]

My proposal was based on the assumption that a certain individual would not permit the GDC to toss his entire patented scoring structure out the window this season. A compromise would be more likely if enough people discussed it publicly and it became large enough of an issue - I think it HAS.

Good job of making that happen here Travis - I think it has been productive.

It's important to note that Dean's patent makes no claim to how points are awarded to the losing alliance; only that the winner gets their own points plus 2 times the loser's. Thus your final suggestion meets that intent and certainly makes more sense to me.

[Paul Copioli]

The main root cause for us even having this discussion is the fact that the loser gets the winner's score. We would not even be having this conversation if the loser got the loser's penalized score like in the pre-2004 years.

Giving the lose the winner's score has broken the "coopertition" model. It is stupid, but my teams will play the game according to the rules. We will score for the opponent when necessary and lock down our own goals when appropriate.

If 148 or 217 is with 2 incredibly ineffective robots and we are up against a tough alliance, we will have the rookies lock down our goals and we will score like crazy for the other alliance. I do not feel bad about this and will not apologize. These are the rules we are given and we will play within them.

[Tknee]

If 148 or 217 is with 2 incredibly ineffective robots and we are up against a tough alliance, we will have the rookies lock down our goals and we will score like crazy for the other alliance. I do not feel bad about this and will not apologize. These are the rules we are given and we will play within them.
If you would just humour my curiousity: if such a scenario were to arise, and your opponents knowing your proposed strategy offered to play for the tie instead, would you accept such an offer, or do you believe it to be too risky?

[Travis Hoffman]

Giving the lose the winner's score has broken the "coopertition" model. It is stupid, but my teams will play the game according to the rules. We will score for the opponent when necessary and lock down our own goals when appropriate.




I'd love to start another poll which simply asks "of all the teams on alliances who've had goals scored for them by the opposition over the years, how many actually were truly inspired by the practice?" That is the root question to me for all of this "coopertition" junk. HOW DOES SCORING FOR THE OPPOSITION ELEVATE THOSE WHO NEED MORE GUIDANCE? "Oh wow, we just got pwned and embarrassed publicly; I think I've seen the light - I'm magically going to go design a robot as good as Paul or JVN now". As far as I'm concerned, scoring for the opposition over the years has primarily served as a mechanic for the BEST TEAMS to ensure higher ranking at the expense of lesser teams. Is this "you inhale audibly relative to them - go get better" negative reinforcement inspirational?

I don't blame the better teams for using the rules to their advantage, but what in the heck is FIRST thinking in believing that this practice holds any type of positive outcome for the program?

[Gary Dillard]

It's kind of interesting that in the one page summary of the game (http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/FRC_Communications_Resource_Center/Communication_Assets/2010_Archive_Assets/2010Game.pdf) there is no mention at all of the seeding system. I guess all these non-FIRSTers we're inviting to the competition will just have to wonder why one alliance is sitting there while the other alliance does all the scoring for both sides.

[Paul Copioli]

I don't blame the better teams for using the rules to their advantage, but what in the heck is FIRST thinking in believing that this practice holds any type of positive outcome for the program?

I have long since given up on that question. There are some things that I have just stopped arguing because there are bigger battles to fight. Now my only expectation is that the rules are clear and consistent. I don't much care what the rules are. My students are still having fun, are inspired, and learning stuff. When they stop is when I stop doing FIRST. Until then, these little rules just don't matter. Don't get me wrong, I think it's dumb to have the scoring the way it is, but it is what it is and it isn't that bad.

If you would just humour my curiousity: if such a scenario were to arise, and your opponents knowing your proposed strategy offered to play for the tie instead, would you accept such an offer, or do you believe it to be too risky?

Please do not misunderstand, I will not collude with the opposition. We will lock down our goals without any prior warning to the other alliance. Think of it as a hostile, or forced, 6 v. 0.

[rcoren22]

The solution is easy...
Scoring an own goal intentionally is a penalty.

[johnr]

So paul ,what if one of your partners says they won't play that game? Or both of them? Seems like alot to ask/bully some rookie team that might be at thier only comp to just sit there. Teams come to play ,not sit.

[RoboMom]

It's kind of interesting that in the one page summary of the game (http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/FRC_Communications_Resource_Center/Communication_Assets/2010_Archive_Assets/2010Game.pdf) there is no mention at all of the seeding system. I guess all these non-FIRSTers we're inviting to the competition will just have to wonder why one alliance is sitting there while the other alliance does all the scoring for both sides.

And after spending 2 days trying to figure out how to spin this and explain it to the VIPs and public this week (and getting some really thoughtful explanations from people I respect-thank you all!) I will keep this one-page summary in the training packet for the adult and Student Ambassadors.

And I will include the following:
>>There are many ways to earn penalties this year; some are about safety and others to make scoring tougher. FIRST challenges traditional views of competition in this game by creating a ranking system not based on wins and losses. Instead, teams have multiple game strategies available to them, including 6v0 (to jointly achieve a high-score) or scoring on themselves to gain Coopertition points. Some of these strategies involve negotiation between the red and blue alliances before the match.<<

If there are any in-depth follow-up questions, I will say "We are lucky to have a representative of the Game Design Committee here today and let me introduce you."

[Paul Copioli]

So paul ,what if one of your partners says they won't play that game? Or both of them? Seems like alot to ask/bully some rookie team that might be at thier only comp to just sit there. Teams come to play ,not sit.

Then we don't do the strategy. All alliance members must be on board with the strategy for it to work.

All I am saying is that it s a viable strategy and those that throw it out don't understand the entire game.

By the way, they do not have to sit their. They can kick balls out of the zone, actively defend our own goals, etc.; but if they can do that much and are partnered with us then we probably wouldn't use that strategy.

[Swampdude]

Then we don't do the strategy. All alliance members must be on board with the strategy for it to work.

All I am saying is that it s a viable strategy and those that throw it out don't understand the entire game.

By the way, they do not have to sit their. They can kick balls out of the zone, actively defend our own goals, etc.; but if they can do that much and are partnered with us then we probably wouldn't use that strategy.

Paul, just curious, what would you do if you're opposite a team that plans to do a hostile 6v0 to your alliance also and nobody agreed to anything before the match? Will you abandon your hostile 6v0 to support them or duke it out for a low scoring match?

Another thing I haven't seen mentioned is where does Autonomous come in to all of this?

[jamie_1930]

honestly I hate the system and didn't participate in any 6v0 at FLR but at NCR we'll most likely be doing so to guarantee a top 8 seed

[Paul Copioli]

Paul, just curious, what would you do if you're opposite a team that plans to do a hostile 6v0 to your alliance also and nobody agreed to anything before the match? Will you abandon your hostile 6v0 to support them or duke it out for a low scoring match?

Another thing I haven't seen mentioned is where does Autonomous come in to all of this?

This happened to 217 at FLR. We scored as much as we could for ourselves. The opposition sat robots in the corners since one was dead already. We actually got our rankings hurt by this (Slipped to 4th, probably could have been #2), but I would have done the same thing in their shoes. I was not the driver coach during this match, but there wasn't much 217 could do but score as many for ourselves as possible.

[Swampdude]

This happened to 217 at FLR. We scored as much as we could for ourselves. The opposition sat robots in the corners since one was dead already. We actually got our rankings hurt by this (Slipped to 4th, probably could have been #2), but I would have done the same thing in their shoes. I was not the driver coach during this match, but there wasn't much 217 could do but score as many for ourselves as possible.

Game on ;)

[TheOtherGuy]

Would it hurt to go a little further with the following scheme?

Winner gets penalized winner's score + penalized loser's score
Loser gets penalized loser's score

Coopertition is still intact in that a dominant alliance can choose to not play defense and kick balls to the lesser alliance's zone and get a few points out of it. The lesser alliance also isn't forced to give the dominant alliance twice their score if they are horribly outnumbered (2 dead robots scenario).

All in all, I think it's quite apparent that giving the losing team the winning team's score IS the root of the problem.

[Chris is me]

That is the root question to me for all of this "coopertition" junk. HOW DOES SCORING FOR THE OPPOSITION ELEVATE THOSE WHO NEED MORE GUIDANCE? "Oh wow, we just got pwned and embarrassed publicly; I think I've seen the light - I'm magically going to go design a robot as good as Paul or JVN now".

In past years, when opponents scored for you, it helped the loser in the rankings. Now, it is to no one's benefit but the winner to score on the loser's goal, which makes awarding the practice utterly stupid.

[Radical Pi]

Well, the GDC has spoken as to intent. They want the competitive edge on the field for coopertition, but it still doesn't completely solve the problem. If a team is at a huge disadvantage, the bonus of a 6v0 match is still there for the losing alliance. They may not get more than the winners anymore, but it still is a way to deny an easy boost in points for the winner